That's no myth. The "expert" on MSN admits as much by the end of the passage when he notes that the federal government lent the money to iself and eventually, "This cash has to come from somewhere: increased taxes, reductions in other spending or additional borrowing."

That's just another way of saying the trust funds are indeed worthless. If I had a 401-K plan that was filled entirely with IOUs from myself, that 401-K would be worthless.

It's the same with Social Security. If the assets had been invested the way a regular retirement plan's assets are invested, then the federal government would be sending out checks based on revenue it receives from the stock market, the bond market and perhaps even foreign stock markets.

No tax hikes would be required.

But since the government is getting the money from itself, there is no asset. Taxes must be raised.

And they must be raised in the most unfair way possible. Young people will have to pay more tax to fund handouts to old people.

I'm a few years away from being one of those old people, so that works out just fine for me.

But I don't think young people will think much of the deal.

As for whoever wrote that MSN piece, someone should ask him who said this:

These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, make it easier for the government to pay benefits.2